Discussion:
OT: A roundabout lesson for Alan Baker
(too old to reply)
Thomas E.
2023-02-07 18:59:16 UTC
Permalink
From a Windsor Ontario site:



Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.

At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.

At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you MUST move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay there until you exit.

At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through straight on by itself in the left lane the entire time.

The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency vehicles.

These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too easy to make an error, confusing other drivers.

What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume must apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the green car at 3:55.

With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules. She was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My wife did not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to my wife, and even if it was she would have expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit our car.

This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for this accident.

End of argument.
Alan
2023-02-07 19:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts all
the time...
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you MUST
move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and stay
there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
Look, you Lying Little Shit:

I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN THE
ROUNDABOUT.

That is a lie.
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you MUST
move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars
as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through straight on by
itself in the left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling exits.
Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too easy to make
an error, confusing other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume must
apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the green car
at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules. She
was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My wife did
not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to my wife, and
even if it was she would have expected it stay in its lane, go
straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our lane was
marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and
hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and the
other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for this
accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or agressive driving....

...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.
Thomas E.
2023-02-07 19:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts all
the time...
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you MUST
move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and stay
there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN THE
ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you MUST
move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars
as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through straight on by
itself in the left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling exits.
Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too easy to make
an error, confusing other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume must
apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the green car
at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules. She
was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My wife did
not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to my wife, and
even if it was she would have expected it stay in its lane, go
straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our lane was
marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and
hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and the
other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for this
accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot write up what he did not see.

Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule does not always apply in this situation.

You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.

You are the one that is lying here.
Alan
2023-02-07 20:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts
all the time...
Look!

Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!

:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you
MUST move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then
you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane
and stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN
THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!

Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!

:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you
MUST move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then
you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right
lane and stay there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green
cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit
together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
straight on by itself in the left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling
exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too
easy to make an error, confusing other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume
must apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the
green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules.
She was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My
wife did not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to
my wife, and even if it was she would have expected it stay in
its lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other
driver had no reason to assume that we might not be turning left.
Our lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed
the lane line and hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and
the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for
this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot write
up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!

The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination of
agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally written on
the form.
Post by Thomas E.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule does
not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...

...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
Post by Thomas E.
You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to move
to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right lane
and you were in the left lane.

It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked your
view.

A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to overtake
yours.

Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she should
have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law) been in the
right lane to begin with. For your intended travel direction there was
no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?

What do you claim I'm lying about?

Would it be akin to you lying when you said:

"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in Vancouver
he needs a lesson."

That's a lie by mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
germane to the question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
driving in roundabouts.

There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the Lower
Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their use.

As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with which I
am VERY familiar.

The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly while
traveling out to UBC to play hockey:

<https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>

The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto McCallum
Road:

<https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
Thomas E.
2023-02-07 22:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts
all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you
MUST move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then
you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane
and stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN
THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you
MUST move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then
you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right
lane and stay there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green
cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit
together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
straight on by itself in the left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling
exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too
easy to make an error, confusing other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume
must apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the
green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules.
She was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My
wife did not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to
my wife, and even if it was she would have expected it stay in
its lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other
driver had no reason to assume that we might not be turning left.
Our lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed
the lane line and hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and
the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for
this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot write
up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination of
agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally written on
the form.
Post by Thomas E.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule does
not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
Post by Thomas E.
You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to move
to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right lane
and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked your
view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to overtake
yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she should
have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law) been in the
right lane to begin with. For your intended travel direction there was
no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about?
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in Vancouver
he needs a lesson."
That's a lie by mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
germane to the question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the Lower
Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with which I
am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly while
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto McCallum
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse to post?

Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.

As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when the other car was seen by me for the first time just before the collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular. We had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do know that she was heading east before entering the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.

I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left lane.

That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself, approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left lane.

Stop lying and admit the truth.
Alan
2023-02-08 01:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn
you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit. Watch
the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes
IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn
you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
enter in the right lane and stay there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can
use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light
green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car
goes through straight on by itself in the left lane the
entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those
in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require
signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick
that it's too easy to make an error, confusing other
drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule
you assume must apply in this situation is contradicted by
the path of the green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these
rules. She was intending to make a left turn from the right
lane. My wife did not break any rules. The other car was not
in sight to my wife, and even if it was she would have
expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and not cross
into our lane. The other driver had no reason to assume that
we might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit
our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been
in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer
and the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability
for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot
write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination
of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally
written on the form.
Post by Thomas E.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule
does not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
Post by Thomas E.
You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to
move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right
lane and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked
your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to
overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she
should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law)
been in the right lane to begin with. For your intended travel
direction there was no need to be in the left lane in the
roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you lying
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the issue.
The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question of whether
or not I have lots of experience with driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the
Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their
use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with
which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer know
that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse to
post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows, Lying
Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I said,
few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this city by the
end of the year. You still need a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?

Fascinating.
Post by Thomas E.
As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when the
other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular. We
had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the signage or
think we were intending to turn left. We do know that she was heading
east before entering the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn
left. There was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for a
left turn, Lying Little Shit.

But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the circular...

...as Indiana law required.
Post by Thomas E.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was heavy
morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the oncoming
car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.

Shall I produce the quotes?

:-)
Post by Thomas E.
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's done
all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of cars in
the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if traffic is
not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.

I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.

Must I quote it again?

:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Thomas E.
2023-02-20 14:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn
you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit. Watch
the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes
IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn
you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
enter in the right lane and stay there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can
use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light
green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car
goes through straight on by itself in the left lane the
entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those
in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require
signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick
that it's too easy to make an error, confusing other
drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule
you assume must apply in this situation is contradicted by
the path of the green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these
rules. She was intending to make a left turn from the right
lane. My wife did not break any rules. The other car was not
in sight to my wife, and even if it was she would have
expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and not cross
into our lane. The other driver had no reason to assume that
we might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit
our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been
in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer
and the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability
for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot
write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination
of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally
written on the form.
Post by Thomas E.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule
does not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
Post by Thomas E.
You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to
move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right
lane and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked
your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to
overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she
should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law)
been in the right lane to begin with. For your intended travel
direction there was no need to be in the left lane in the
roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you lying
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the issue.
The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question of whether
or not I have lots of experience with driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the
Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their
use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with
which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer know
that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse to
post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows, Lying
Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I said,
few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this city by the
end of the year. You still need a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?
Fascinating.
Post by Thomas E.
As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when the
other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular. We
had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the signage or
think we were intending to turn left. We do know that she was heading
east before entering the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn
left. There was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for a
left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the circular...
...as Indiana law required.
Post by Thomas E.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was heavy
morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the oncoming
car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's done
all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of cars in
the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if traffic is
not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right, turning right.

https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.

IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation
Sec. 7. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is driving:

(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in each direction; and

(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;

shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.

(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
Alan
2023-02-20 19:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
and enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit.
Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed
lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right
turn you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
and enter in the right lane and stay there until you
exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you
can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow
and light green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2
yellow cars transit together, side-by-side, straight on.
The green car goes through straight on by itself in the
left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly
those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not
require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is
so quick that it's too easy to make an error, confusing
other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right
rule you assume must apply in this situation is
contradicted by the path of the green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
these rules. She was intending to make a left turn from
the right lane. My wife did not break any rules. The
other car was not in sight to my wife, and even if it was
she would have expected it stay in its lane, go straight
on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our
lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She
crossed the lane line and hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have
been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police
officer and the other driver's insurance company. We had
no liability for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
cannot write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It
was literally written on the form.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it
goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay
right rule does not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable
to move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the
time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car
going faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in
the right lane and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
blocked your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention
to overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact,
she should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if
not law) been in the right lane to begin with. For your
intended travel direction there was no need to be in the left
lane in the roundabout.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the
issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question
of whether or not I have lots of experience with driving in
roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of
the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with
their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts
with which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse
to post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows,
Lying Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I
said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this
city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?
Fascinating.
Post by Thomas E.
As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when
the other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular.
We had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do know that
she was heading east before entering the intersection and in the
wrong lane to turn left. There was other traffic in the right
lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for
a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
circular...
...as Indiana law required.
Post by Thomas E.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was
heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left
lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's
done all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of
cars in the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast
rule that everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told
no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We were
not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right, turning
right.
That's something you invented in your narrative later.
Post by Thomas E.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a) A
person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or
blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the
right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and
allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by subsection
(a) commits a Class C infraction.
You're doing it again, Lying Little Shit:

Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...

...when in fact, I first showed it to you...

...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a highway"...

...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.
Thomas E.
2023-02-26 17:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
and enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit.
Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have changed
lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right
turn you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
and enter in the right lane and stay there until you
exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you
can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow
and light green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2
yellow cars transit together, side-by-side, straight on.
The green car goes through straight on by itself in the
left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly
those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not
require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is
so quick that it's too easy to make an error, confusing
other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right
rule you assume must apply in this situation is
contradicted by the path of the green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
these rules. She was intending to make a left turn from
the right lane. My wife did not break any rules. The
other car was not in sight to my wife, and even if it was
she would have expected it stay in its lane, go straight
on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our
lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She
crossed the lane line and hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have
been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police
officer and the other driver's insurance company. We had
no liability for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
cannot write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It
was literally written on the form.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it
goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay
right rule does not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable
to move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the
time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car
going faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in
the right lane and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
blocked your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention
to overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact,
she should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if
not law) been in the right lane to begin with. For your
intended travel direction there was no need to be in the left
lane in the roundabout.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the
issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question
of whether or not I have lots of experience with driving in
roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of
the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with
their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts
with which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse
to post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows,
Lying Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I
said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this
city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?
Fascinating.
Post by Thomas E.
As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when
the other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular.
We had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do know that
she was heading east before entering the intersection and in the
wrong lane to turn left. There was other traffic in the right
lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for
a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
circular...
...as Indiana law required.
Post by Thomas E.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was
heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left
lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's
done all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of
cars in the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast
rule that everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told
no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Post by Thomas E.
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We were
not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right, turning
right.
That's something you invented in your narrative later.
Post by Thomas E.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a) A
person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or
blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the
right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and
allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by subsection
(a) commits a Class C infraction.
Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a highway"...
...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.
Regardless of who found it first, the law is clear. One more thing is clear. You were not a witness to what happened. You do not know if it was reasonable for my wife to move to the right outside the roundabout, or not. You did not see where that other car came from. Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for a left turn. If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect the other driver to exit with us, not try a left turn from the right lane. That's what the police report said and the other driver's insurance adjuster agreed.

It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what you cannot even know.
Alan
2023-02-26 19:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering
the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the
traffic and enter in the left lane and stay there
until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have
changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
right turn you MUST move to the right lane before
entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap
in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight
you can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the
yellow and light green cars as they go straight. Note
that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
straight on by itself in the left lane the entire
time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks
and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are
exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we
do not require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that
transit is so quick that it's too easy to make an
error, confusing other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow
cars going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The
stay-right rule you assume must apply in this
situation is contradicted by the path of the green
car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
these rules. She was intending to make a left turn
from the right lane. My wife did not break any rules.
The other car was not in sight to my wife, and even
if it was she would have expected it stay in its
lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane.
The other driver had no reason to assume that we
might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line
and hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should
have been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police
officer and the other driver's insurance company. We
had no liability for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in
the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
cannot write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit.
It was literally written on the form.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as
it goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict
stay right rule does not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
You were not there, you do not know if it was even
advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as it
existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a
car going faster than you were that you saw coming and it
was in the right lane and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
blocked your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
intention to overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In
fact, she should have (as a matter of proper driving
ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane to begin
with. For your intended travel direction there was no need
to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating
the issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the
question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all
of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
experienced with their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an
excuse to post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
knows, Lying Little Shit.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like
I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in
this city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
Little Shit?
Fascinating.
As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout
when the other car was seen by me for the first time just
before the collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in
the circular. We had no reason to think that driver was going
to ignore the signage or think we were intending to turn
left. We do know that she was heading east before entering
the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT
for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
circular...
...as Indiana law required.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there
was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in
the left lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown numerous
videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all by
themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that everybody
follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if
traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We
were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right,
turning right.
That's something you invented in your narrative later.
Post by Thomas E.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a)
A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that
impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic,
except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to
the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
highway"...
...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.
Let's count the lies and evasions.
Post by Thomas E.
Regardless of who found it first,
I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
Post by Thomas E.
the law is clear.
You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't a
"highway"...

...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads are
considered to be highways.
Post by Thomas E.
One more thing is
clear.
That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple times.
Post by Thomas E.
You were not a witness to what happened.
Wow! Something true!
Post by Thomas E.
You do not know if it
was reasonable for my wife to move to the right outside the
roundabout, or not.
But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the fact
that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying to
pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You did not see where that other car came from.
And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it coming for
a while...

...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
Post by Thomas E.
Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for a
left turn.
Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...

...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake yours.
Post by Thomas E.
If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect
the other driver to exit with us,
And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
Post by Thomas E.
not try a left turn from the right
lane. That's what the police report said and the other driver's
insurance adjuster agreed.
The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and the
form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!

How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about things
"you cannot even know"?
Thomas E.
2023-02-26 22:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering
the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the
traffic and enter in the left lane and stay there
until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have
changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
right turn you MUST move to the right lane before
entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap
in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight
you can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the
yellow and light green cars as they go straight. Note
that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
straight on by itself in the left lane the entire
time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks
and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are
exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we
do not require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that
transit is so quick that it's too easy to make an
error, confusing other drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow
cars going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The
stay-right rule you assume must apply in this
situation is contradicted by the path of the green
car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
these rules. She was intending to make a left turn
from the right lane. My wife did not break any rules.
The other car was not in sight to my wife, and even
if it was she would have expected it stay in its
lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane.
The other driver had no reason to assume that we
might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line
and hit our car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should
have been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating police
officer and the other driver's insurance company. We
had no liability for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in
the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
cannot write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit.
It was literally written on the form.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as
it goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict
stay right rule does not always apply in this situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
You were not there, you do not know if it was even
advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as it
existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had a
car going faster than you were that you saw coming and it
was in the right lane and you were in the left lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
blocked your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
intention to overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In
fact, she should have (as a matter of proper driving
ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane to begin
with. For your intended travel direction there was no need
to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating
the issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the
question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all
of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
experienced with their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an
excuse to post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
knows, Lying Little Shit.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like
I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in
this city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
Little Shit?
Fascinating.
As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout
when the other car was seen by me for the first time just
before the collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in
the circular. We had no reason to think that driver was going
to ignore the signage or think we were intending to turn
left. We do know that she was heading east before entering
the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT
for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
circular...
...as Indiana law required.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there
was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in
the left lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown numerous
videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all by
themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that everybody
follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if
traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We
were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right,
turning right.
That's something you invented in your narrative later.
Post by Thomas E.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a)
A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that
impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic,
except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic
in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to
the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
highway"...
...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.
Let's count the lies and evasions.
Post by Thomas E.
Regardless of who found it first,
I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
Post by Thomas E.
the law is clear.
You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't a
"highway"...
...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads are
considered to be highways.
Post by Thomas E.
One more thing is
clear.
That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple times.
Post by Thomas E.
You were not a witness to what happened.
Wow! Something true!
Post by Thomas E.
You do not know if it
was reasonable for my wife to move to the right outside the
roundabout, or not.
But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the fact
that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying to
pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You did not see where that other car came from.
And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it coming for
a while...
...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
Post by Thomas E.
Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for a
left turn.
Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...
...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake yours.
Post by Thomas E.
If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect
the other driver to exit with us,
And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
Post by Thomas E.
not try a left turn from the right
lane. That's what the police report said and the other driver's
insurance adjuster agreed.
The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and the
form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about things
"you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic? What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind us. Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move to the right lane you lying little shit?

The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving aggressively. He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you lying little shit.
Alan
2023-02-26 23:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts
like this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use
multi-lane roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a
left turn you MUST move to the left lane before
entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a
gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and
stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have
changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
right turn you MUST move to the right lane
before entering the roundabout. Then you must
wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the
right lane and stay there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go
straight you can use EITHER the right or left
lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars as
they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The
green car goes through straight on by itself in
the left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with
trucks and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are
exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is
that we do not require signaling exits. Our
reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's
too easy to make an error, confusing other
drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2
yellow cars going straight on at 3:50 in the
video. The stay-right rule you assume must apply
in this situation is contradicted by the path of
the green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver
broke these rules. She was intending to make a
left turn from the right lane. My wife did not
break any rules. The other car was not in sight
to my wife, and even if it was she would have
expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and
not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
reason to assume that we might not be turning
left. Our lane was marked for straight on or a
left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit our
car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she
should have been in BEFORE you reached the
roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating
police officer and the other driver's insurance
company. We had no liability for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing
in the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened.
He cannot write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little
Shit. It was literally written on the form.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video
as it goes through by itself in the left lane. The
strict stay right rule does not always apply in this
situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
You were not there, you do not know if it was even
advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as
it existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had
a car going faster than you were that you saw coming
and it was in the right lane and you were in the left
lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared
and blocked your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
intention to overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over.
In fact, she should have (as a matter of proper
driving ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane
to begin with. For your intended travel direction there
was no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
this in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by
mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
germane to the question of whether or not I have lots
of experience with driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in
all of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
experienced with their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your
employer know that you monitor this group constantly
looking for an excuse to post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
knows, Lying Little Shit.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave.
Like I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150
total in this city by the end of the year. You still need
a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
Little Shit?
Fascinating.
As has been explained many times we were in the
roundabout when the other car was seen by me for the
first time just before the collision. You are NOT
supposed to change lanes in the circular. We had no
reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do
know that she was heading east before entering the
intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE
ROUNDABOUT for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
circular...
...as Indiana law required.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say
there was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to
stay in the left lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of
the oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little
Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown
numerous videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all
by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He
was told no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to
be in the left lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right
lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit.
We were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our
right, turning right.
That's something you invented in your narrative later.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7.
(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed
that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of
traffic in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles
are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off
to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
highway"...
...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are
highways.
Let's count the lies and evasions.
Post by Thomas E.
Regardless of who found it first,
I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
Post by Thomas E.
the law is clear.
You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't
a "highway"...
...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads
are considered to be highways.
Post by Thomas E.
One more thing is clear.
That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple times.
Post by Thomas E.
You were not a witness to what happened.
Wow! Something true!
Post by Thomas E.
You do not know if it was reasonable for my wife to move to the
right outside the roundabout, or not.
But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the
fact that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying
to pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You did not see where that other car came from.
And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it
coming for a while...
...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
Post by Thomas E.
Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for
a left turn.
Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...
...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake yours.
Post by Thomas E.
If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect the other
driver to exit with us,
And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
Post by Thomas E.
not try a left turn from the right lane. That's what the police
report said and the other driver's insurance adjuster agreed.
The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and
the form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about
things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do you
have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up from
behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of the accident.

And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.

Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you
have that we were holding up traffic behind us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof
do you have that we were obligated to move to the right lane you
lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's interpretation
of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you Lying
Little Shit.

'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'

He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no
"requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could not say either
way, you lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...

...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND aggressive
driving, you Lying Little Shit:

'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'

Remember? No?
Thomas E.
2023-03-14 16:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
Post by Alan
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
http://youtu.be/3hKXirnvf_I
Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts
like this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
Despite having been told that I have to use
multi-lane roundabouts all the time...
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a
left turn you MUST move to the left lane before
entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a
gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and
stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
I have never suggested that your wife should have
changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
That is a lie.
Look!
Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
:-)
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
right turn you MUST move to the right lane
before entering the roundabout. Then you must
wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the
right lane and stay there until you exit.
At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go
straight you can use EITHER the right or left
lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars as
they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The
green car goes through straight on by itself in
the left lane the entire time.
The rest of the video covers encounters with
trucks and emergency vehicles.
These lane use rules and the road markings are
exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is
that we do not require signaling exits. Our
reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's
too easy to make an error, confusing other
drivers.
What should have happened is shown by the 2
yellow cars going straight on at 3:50 in the
video. The stay-right rule you assume must apply
in this situation is contradicted by the path of
the green car at 3:55.
With regard to the accident, the other driver
broke these rules. She was intending to make a
left turn from the right lane. My wife did not
break any rules. The other car was not in sight
to my wife, and even if it was she would have
expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and
not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
reason to assume that we might not be turning
left. Our lane was marked for straight on or a
left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit our
car.
Your wife broke the rules about which lane she
should have been in BEFORE you reached the
roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
This was the conclusion of the investigating
police officer and the other driver's insurance
company. We had no liability for this accident.
End of argument.
And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
driving....
...which is what made you bring up the whole thing
in the first place.
The officer was not there when the accident happened.
He cannot write up what he did not see.
So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little
Shit. It was literally written on the form.
Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video
as it goes through by itself in the left lane. The
strict stay right rule does not always apply in this
situation.
It doesn't apply...
...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
You were not there, you do not know if it was even
advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as
it existed at the time.
I know that when you initially told the story, you had
a car going faster than you were that you saw coming
and it was in the right lane and you were in the left
lane.
It was only later on that a magical third car appeared
and blocked your view.
A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
intention to overtake yours.
Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over.
In fact, she should have (as a matter of proper
driving ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane
to begin with. For your intended travel direction there
was no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
You are the one that is lying here.
Really?
What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to
"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
this in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by
mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
germane to the question of whether or not I have lots
of experience with driving in roundabouts.
There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in
all of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
experienced with their use.
As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your
employer know that you monitor this group constantly
looking for an excuse to post?
Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
knows, Lying Little Shit.
Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave.
Like I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150
total in this city by the end of the year. You still need
a lesson.
You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?
Fascinating.
As has been explained many times we were in the
roundabout when the other car was seen by me for the
first time just before the collision. You are NOT
supposed to change lanes in the circular. We had no
reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do
know that she was heading east before entering the
intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE
ROUNDABOUT for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the circular...
...as Indiana law required.
I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say
there was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to
stay in the left lane.
You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of
the oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little
Shit.
Shall I produce the quotes?
:-)
That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown
numerous videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all
by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He
was told no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to
be in the left lane.
BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
I quoted the law that required you to be in the right
lane.
Must I quote it again?
:-)
Stop lying and admit the truth.
What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit.
We were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our
right, turning right.
That's something you invented in your narrative later.
https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7.
(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed
that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is
(1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of
traffic in each direction; and
(2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles
are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off
to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
(b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a highway"...
...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are
highways.
Let's count the lies and evasions.
Post by Thomas E.
Regardless of who found it first,
I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
Post by Thomas E.
the law is clear.
You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't
a "highway"...
...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads
are considered to be highways.
Post by Thomas E.
One more thing is clear.
That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple times.
Post by Thomas E.
You were not a witness to what happened.
Wow! Something true!
Post by Thomas E.
You do not know if it was reasonable for my wife to move to the
right outside the roundabout, or not.
But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the
fact that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying
to pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
You did not see where that other car came from.
And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it
coming for a while...
...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
Post by Thomas E.
Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for
a left turn.
Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...
...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake yours.
Post by Thomas E.
If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect the other
driver to exit with us,
And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
Post by Thomas E.
not try a left turn from the right lane. That's what the police
report said and the other driver's insurance adjuster agreed.
The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and
the form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what
you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about
things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do you
have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up from
behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you
have that we were holding up traffic behind us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof
do you have that we were obligated to move to the right lane you
lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's interpretation
of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you Lying
Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no
"requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could not say either
way, you lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND aggressive
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters. The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning left from the right lane. My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in our lane to go straight. The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our right front fender.
Alan
2023-03-14 16:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?

Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Thomas E.
2023-03-14 17:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
Alan
2023-03-14 18:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.

The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.

Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.

But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.

I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.
Thomas E.
2023-03-29 18:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.
So you are insisting that regardless of road markings and other traffic she should have moved to the right lane?
Alan
2023-03-29 18:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.
So you are insisting that regardless of road markings and other traffic she should have moved to the right lane?
And you're playing your little shit games again.
Thomas E.
2023-03-29 18:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.
Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof. I did not mention it to him either. There was no need to. She told him she was in the wrong lane. That's all he needed to know.
Alan
2023-03-29 18:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.
Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
You are lying.

The form required him to answer and he answered "No".

But a liar is who you are.
Thomas E.
2023-04-05 12:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
to the right lane you lying little shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.
Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
You are lying.
The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
But a liar is who you are.
He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained from the other driver.

Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore, you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.

Keep insisting it was, but you are wrong. End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.
Alan
2023-04-05 15:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop
lying about what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making
assumptions about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What
proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing
traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car
coming up from behind you and getting to slightly ahead
of you at the time of the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing
traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster
than you, then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up
traffic behind us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation
of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were
obligated to move to the right lane you lying little
shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana
lawyer's interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was
not driving aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident
report, you Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash
a result of aggressive driving", and the officer
answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no
"requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could
not say either way, you lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers
like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
turning left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
we turned right in our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
into our right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving
was not a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim
was an example of what aggressive driving does, you Lying
Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you.
Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened
if your wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still
move to the right-hand lane whenever I can.
Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other
driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
You are lying.
The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
But a liar is who you are.
He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated
many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for
the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained
from the other driver.
It's not actually a check box...

...but he did answer the question:

"Was this crash the result of aggressive driving?"

And the typed answer was: "NO".

First page of the report, right hand column, last item above the box for
the first "Owner's Name and Address"...

...you little shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have
never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not
we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore,
you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.
You didn't NEED to be slowEST.

You were clearly slowerER than the other car in this accident.
Post by Thomas E.
Keep insisting it was, but you are wrong. End of discussion for my
part. You can have the last reply.
Ironic.
-hh
2023-04-05 17:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop
lying about what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making
assumptions about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What
proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing
traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car
coming up from behind you and getting to slightly ahead
of you at the time of the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing
traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster
than you, then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up
traffic behind us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were
obligated to move to the right lane you lying little
shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana
lawyer's interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was
not driving aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident
report, you Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash
a result of aggressive driving", and the officer
answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no
"requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could
not say either way, you lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers
like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
turning left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
we turned right in our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
into our right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving
was not a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim
was an example of what aggressive driving does, you Lying
Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you.
Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened
if your wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still
move to the right-hand lane whenever I can.
Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other
driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
You are lying.
The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
But a liar is who you are.
He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated
many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for
the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained
from the other driver.
It's not actually a check box...
"Was this crash the result of aggressive driving?"
And the typed answer was: "NO".
First page of the report, right hand column, last item above the box for
the first "Owner's Name and Address"...
...you little shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have
never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not
we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore,
you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.
You didn't NEED to be slowEST.
You were clearly slowerER than the other car in this accident.
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
That makes for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.

In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.

-hh
Thomas E.
2023-04-05 18:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by -hh
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop
lying about what you cannot even know.
Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
How many lies have you told about me by making
assumptions about things "you cannot even know"?
I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What
proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing
traffic?
The fact that in your initial post you described a car
coming up from behind you and getting to slightly ahead
of you at the time of the accident.
And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing
traffic", Little Shit.
Nothing to say, Little Shit?
Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster
than you, then you are slower.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
Post by Thomas E.
What proof do you have that we were holding up
traffic behind us.
You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
Post by Thomas E.
Therefore what proof do you have that we were
obligated to move to the right lane you lying little
shit?
The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana
lawyer's interpretation of it.
Post by Thomas E.
The officer did not state that the other driver was
not driving aggressively.
Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident
report, you Lying Little Shit.
'2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash
a result of aggressive driving", and the officer
answered a flat "NO".'
He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
He did not state that she was either. There was no
"requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could
not say either way, you lying little shit.
He also didn't say she was speeding...
...but you used that accident as an example of speeding
'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers
like you can do'
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
turning left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
we turned right in our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
into our right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
possible.
I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving
was not a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim
was an example of what aggressive driving does, you Lying
Little Shit.
The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened
if your wife had been in the right lane.
I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still
move to the right-hand lane whenever I can.
Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other
driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
You are lying.
The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
But a liar is who you are.
He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated
many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for
the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained
from the other driver.
It's not actually a check box...
"Was this crash the result of aggressive driving?"
And the typed answer was: "NO".
First page of the report, right hand column, last item above the box for
the first "Owner's Name and Address"...
...you little shit.
Post by Thomas E.
Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have
never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not
we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore,
you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.
You didn't NEED to be slowest.
You were clearly slowerER than the other car in this accident.
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
That makes for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And, before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at the first roundabout.

This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left turn.

Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several videos showing this. Here is one:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link

Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Alan
2023-04-05 18:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
(very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Couple of points, Little Shit.

1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your right.

2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.

3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.

And 4:

'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
Thomas E.
2023-04-13 11:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
(very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
No, no and no. She could not have been in the right lane when the street gained a second lane. At that point the second lane is marked "right turn only" onto a side street. Also, how do you know that we were the slowest vehicle once past that right turn lane? You don't, and I don't remember either. But with the first roundabout coming up quickly it's very possible that vehicles turning right there were slowing to make the turn. Also, in this community, as repeatedly shown in videos, use either lane to go straight when those lanes are so designated.
Alan
2023-04-13 17:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
(very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
Thomas E.
2023-05-04 20:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
(very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.

From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane there. She could not move to the right the moment the street widened.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link

Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as the road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at Springmill.

From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of the side street heading east and the very limited distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight here. Also note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link

After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?

Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts."
Alan
2023-05-05 17:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were
passed on the right by another driver, prior to getting to
the traffic circle. That makes for there being at least two
(2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane
sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except
to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers
came up so quick that moving to the right might have caused
an accident. And, before that drivers in front of us had
slowed to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely
spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any lane
decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not knowing
that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a
4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there
when going straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd
been where she was supposed to be this accident would never
have happened. You can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in
ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on
the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the
road gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge of
the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Springmill.
Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2 lanes
eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane there.
She could not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as the
road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start to
slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois, the
accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street exits
the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of the
side street heading east and the very limited distance between
Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the left lane
exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no
way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this intersection, we
were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31, the next
intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...

...when the road had been single lane?

Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and was
diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the right
lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before the first
of the two roundabouts."
She should have.

After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto Temple
Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted line between them.

After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife was
holding up must have been BEHIND her.

And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and being
aggressive...

...and you've proven neither.

All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
Thomas E.
2023-05-05 19:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were
passed on the right by another driver, prior to getting to
the traffic circle. That makes for there being at least two
(2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane
sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except
to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers
came up so quick that moving to the right might have caused
an accident. And, before that drivers in front of us had
slowed to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely
spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any lane
decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not knowing
that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a
4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there
when going straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd
been where she was supposed to be this accident would never
have happened. You can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in
ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on
the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the
road gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge of
the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Springmill.
Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2 lanes
eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane there.
She could not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as the
road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start to
slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois, the
accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street exits
the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of the
side street heading east and the very limited distance between
Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the left lane
exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no
way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this intersection, we
were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31, the next
intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and was
diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the right
lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before the first
of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto Temple
Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife was
holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and being
aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or being aggressive, but she was.

You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.

As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is available for straight on and that's what we did. The right lane is for right turns and straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.

The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets come September and will be interested in observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we see here in Carmel

Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
Alan
2023-05-05 19:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they
were passed on the right by another driver, prior to
getting to the traffic circle. That makes for there
being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left
lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep
Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
drivers came up so quick that moving to the right might
have caused an accident. And, before that drivers in
front of us had slowed to make right turns at the first
roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any
lane decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not
knowing that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get
in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay
there when going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing this. Here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident would
never have happened. You can't turn left into someone who
is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been
in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong
lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment
the road gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge
of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2
lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane
there. She could not move to the right the moment the street
widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as
the road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start
to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois,
the accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street
exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling
out of the side street heading east and the very limited distance
between Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic,
a common sight here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. In
heavy traffic there is no way to safely move to the right lane
here. Past this intersection, we were already in the left turn
lane for U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and
was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the
right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted
line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife
was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...

...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In heavy
traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane empty and
create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan, it's not
practical or necessary. The left lane is available for straight on
and that's what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The other
driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local traffic
does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on the right
except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver does either.
I'll likely be driving on your streets come September and will be
interested in observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we
see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...

...and you didn't.
Thomas E.
2023-05-07 13:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they
were passed on the right by another driver, prior to
getting to the traffic circle. That makes for there
being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a "left
lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep
Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
drivers came up so quick that moving to the right might
have caused an accident. And, before that drivers in
front of us had slowed to make right turns at the first
roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any
lane decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not
knowing that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get
in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay
there when going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing this. Here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident would
never have happened. You can't turn left into someone who
is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been
in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong
lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment
the road gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge
of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2
lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane
there. She could not move to the right the moment the street
widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as
the road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start
to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois,
the accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street
exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling
out of the side street heading east and the very limited distance
between Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic,
a common sight here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. In
heavy traffic there is no way to safely move to the right lane
here. Past this intersection, we were already in the left turn
lane for U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and
was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the
right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted
line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife
was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In heavy
traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane empty and
create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan, it's not
practical or necessary. The left lane is available for straight on
and that's what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The other
driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local traffic
does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on the right
except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver does either.
I'll likely be driving on your streets come September and will be
interested in observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we
see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"

Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any very busy 4 lane city street. Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn. Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to harass.
Alan
2023-05-07 17:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
they were passed on the right by another driver,
prior to getting to the traffic circle. That makes
for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a
"left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's
"Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
drivers came up so quick that moving to the right
might have caused an accident. And, before that
drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns
at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make
any lane decisions. She did what she thought was
safest, not knowing that a driver was in the wrong
lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to
get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane
and stay there when going straight on. What she did
is normal behavior. I have made several videos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident
would never have happened. You can't turn left into
someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have
been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the
wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the
moment the road gained a second lane before the first
of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens
to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn
only lane there. She could not move to the right the moment
the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is
for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front
you as the road widens can shift to the right for a right
turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing
for a right turn at Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only lane
where the street exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note
the white car pulling out of the side street heading east and
the very limited distance between Springmill and Illinois.
Also note the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight here. Also
note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there
is no way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this
intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for U.S.
31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my
hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the
surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records
too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in
the right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane
before the first of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a
dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your
wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In
heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane
empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan,
it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is available for
straight on and that's what we did. The right lane is for right
turns and straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth.
The other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on
the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver
does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets come
September and will be interested in observing local driving
customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and Ontario I
expect to observe exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout signage,
"stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any very busy 4
lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless some
people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?

You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or
roundabout, if you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right
turn from the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards before
you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which
is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs, no
questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault in my
wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret it in a
situation where it does not apply. You are lying through your teeth,
and just want to harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the accident
as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.

What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife could have
taken...

Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.

...that would have removed the conflict.

And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof" of the
dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...

...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did the
police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED that
"aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.

And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence has meaning
(when it fails to mention that if your wife had moved to the right lane,
there wouldn't have been an attempt to pass her on the right)...

...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Thomas E.
2023-05-07 19:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
they were passed on the right by another driver,
prior to getting to the traffic circle. That makes
for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a
"left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's
"Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
drivers came up so quick that moving to the right
might have caused an accident. And, before that
drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns
at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make
any lane decisions. She did what she thought was
safest, not knowing that a driver was in the wrong
lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to
get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane
and stay there when going straight on. What she did
is normal behavior. I have made several videos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident
would never have happened. You can't turn left into
someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have
been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the
wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the
moment the road gained a second lane before the first
of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens
to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn
only lane there. She could not move to the right the moment
the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is
for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front
you as the road widens can shift to the right for a right
turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing
for a right turn at Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only lane
where the street exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note
the white car pulling out of the side street heading east and
the very limited distance between Springmill and Illinois.
Also note the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight here. Also
note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there
is no way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this
intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for U.S.
31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my
hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the
surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records
too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in
the right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane
before the first of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a
dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your
wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In
heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane
empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan,
it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is available for
straight on and that's what we did. The right lane is for right
turns and straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth.
The other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on
the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver
does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets come
September and will be interested in observing local driving
customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and Ontario I
expect to observe exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout signage,
"stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any very busy 4
lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless some
people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or
roundabout, if you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right
turn from the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards before
you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which
is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs, no
questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault in my
wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret it in a
situation where it does not apply. You are lying through your teeth,
and just want to harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the accident
as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife could have
taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof" of the
dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did the
police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED that
"aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence has meaning
(when it fails to mention that if your wife had moved to the right lane,
there wouldn't have been an attempt to pass her on the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.

BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required. The officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not intending to exit in the right lane with us.
Alan
2023-05-07 20:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
they were passed on the right by another
driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
That makes for there being at least two (2)
faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a
"left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our
State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to the
right might have caused an accident. And, before
that drivers in front of us had slowed to make
right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was
2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to
make any lane decisions. She did what she thought
was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers
to get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's
left lane and stay there when going straight on.
What she did is normal behavior. I have made
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and
if she'd been where she was supposed to be this
accident would never have happened. You can't turn
left into someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She
was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the
roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the
moment the road gained a second lane before the
first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the
last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street
widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is
right turn only lane there. She could not move to the
right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane
is for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in
front you as the road widens can shift to the right for a
right turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and
slowing for a right turn at Springmill.
A new "detail"!
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only
lane where the street exits the Springmill roundabout.
Also note the white car pulling out of the side street
heading east and the very limited distance between
Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light
traffic, a common sight here. Also note the road signage
for Illinois indicating that either lane is for straight
through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to
safely move to the right lane here. Past this
intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for
U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for
my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I
saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical
records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been
in the right lane from the moment the road gained a
second lane before the first of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting
onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road
with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic
your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding
and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us
or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the
street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you
lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that?
In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left
lane empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane.
No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is
available for straight on and that's what we did. The right
lane is for right turns and straight on. Clearly marked that
way in Google Earth. The other driver did not obey the lane
markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay
on the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that
Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets
come September and will be interested in observing local
driving customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and
Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we see here in
Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any
very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless
some people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if you
try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from the
left lane (except in countries where you drive on the left, then
it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards
before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs,
no questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault
in my wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret
it in a situation where it does not apply. You are lying through
your teeth, and just want to harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife could
have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof" of
the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did the
police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED that
"aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence has
meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had moved to
the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to pass her on
the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.

You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.

I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required. The
officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote up the
results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to shift
right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not intending
to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could there
BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Thomas E.
2023-05-08 23:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
they were passed on the right by another
driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
That makes for there being at least two (2)
faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of a
"left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our
State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to the
right might have caused an accident. And, before
that drivers in front of us had slowed to make
right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was
2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to
make any lane decisions. She did what she thought
was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
wrong lane for a left turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers
to get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's
left lane and stay there when going straight on.
What she did is normal behavior. I have made
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and
if she'd been where she was supposed to be this
accident would never have happened. You can't turn
left into someone who is on your right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She
was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the
roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from the
moment the road gained a second lane before the
first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have the
last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street
widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is
right turn only lane there. She could not move to the
right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Post by Thomas E.
Also note the road signage indicating that either lane
is for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in
front you as the road widens can shift to the right for a
right turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and
slowing for a right turn at Springmill.
A new "detail"!
Post by Thomas E.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only
lane where the street exits the Springmill roundabout.
Also note the white car pulling out of the side street
heading east and the very limited distance between
Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light
traffic, a common sight here. Also note the road signage
for Illinois indicating that either lane is for straight
through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to
safely move to the right lane here. Past this
intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for
U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for
my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I
saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical
records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been
in the right lane from the moment the road gained a
second lane before the first of the two roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting
onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road
with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic
your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding
and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us
or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the
street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you
lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that?
In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left
lane empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane.
No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is
available for straight on and that's what we did. The right
lane is for right turns and straight on. Clearly marked that
way in Google Earth. The other driver did not obey the lane
markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay
on the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that
Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets
come September and will be interested in observing local
driving customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and
Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we see here in
Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any
very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless
some people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if you
try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from the
left lane (except in countries where you drive on the left, then
it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards
before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs,
no questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault
in my wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret
it in a situation where it does not apply. You are lying through
your teeth, and just want to harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife could
have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof" of
the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did the
police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED that
"aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence has
meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had moved to
the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to pass her on
the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.
You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required. The
officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote up the
results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to shift
right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not intending
to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could there
BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.

And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right. Even more so since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
Alan
2023-05-09 19:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
that they were passed on the right by
another driver, prior to getting to the
traffic circle. That makes for there being
at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of
a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed
to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
time to make any lane decisions. She did what
she thought was safest, not knowing that a
driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
roundabout's left lane and stay there when
going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from
the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have
the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Also note the road signage indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
only lane where the street exits the Springmill
roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
the side street heading east and the very limited
distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through
traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
Shit?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for
exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
lane road with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both
speeding and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your
wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
than us or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
The left lane is available for straight on and that's
what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
on your streets come September and will be interested in
observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
any very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
yards before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
could have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
pass her on the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't
mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.
You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
intending to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
You specifically denied it was the law...

...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...

...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.

You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
not something one needs to do.

The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
would have been no accident in this case.
Post by Thomas E.
Even more so
since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
at hand.
Thomas E.
2023-05-14 16:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
that they were passed on the right by
another driver, prior to getting to the
traffic circle. That makes for there being
at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of
a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed
to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
time to make any lane decisions. She did what
she thought was safest, not knowing that a
driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
roundabout's left lane and stay there when
going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from
the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have
the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Also note the road signage indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
only lane where the street exits the Springmill
roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
the side street heading east and the very limited
distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through
traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
Shit?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for
exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
lane road with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both
speeding and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your
wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
than us or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
The left lane is available for straight on and that's
what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
on your streets come September and will be interested in
observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
any very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
yards before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
could have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
pass her on the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.
You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
intending to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
You specifically denied it was the law...
...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
not something one needs to do.
The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
would have been no accident in this case.
Post by Thomas E.
Even more so
since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
at hand.
You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.

If you can prove the following I will admit you were correct:

1. The other driver was entitled to the right lane for a left turn.
2. Traffic conditions at the time were such that a shift to the right lane was absolutely required on our part.
3. We were not entitled in any way to use the left lane to go straight on.
4. The investigating officer reported any fault on our part.
5. The investigating officer reported no fault on the other driver’s part.
6. Lane markings showed no possible use of the left lane for going straight on.
Alan
2023-05-14 17:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
that they were passed on the right by
another driver, prior to getting to the
traffic circle. That makes for there being
at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of
a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed
to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
time to make any lane decisions. She did what
she thought was safest, not knowing that a
driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
roundabout's left lane and stay there when
going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from
the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have
the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Also note the road signage indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
only lane where the street exits the Springmill
roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
the side street heading east and the very limited
distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through
traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
Shit?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for
exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
lane road with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both
speeding and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your
wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
than us or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
The left lane is available for straight on and that's
what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
on your streets come September and will be interested in
observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
any very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
yards before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
could have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
pass her on the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.
You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
intending to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
You specifically denied it was the law...
...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
not something one needs to do.
The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
would have been no accident in this case.
Post by Thomas E.
Even more so
since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
at hand.
You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.
YOU are lying, Little Shit.

You said it was a law that only applied on highways, and that the road
you were on was not a highway.
Post by Thomas E.
1. The other driver was entitled to the right lane for a left turn.
I never said she was entitled to a left turn from the right lane.

Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
2. Traffic conditions at the time were such that a shift to the right lane was absolutely required on our part.
The lane was, by force of it only coming into being right there,
necessarily empty and there was (as you, yourself, have admitted) a car
behind you that wanted to go faster than you were going.
Post by Thomas E.
3. We were not entitled in any way to use the left lane to go straight on.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
4. The investigating officer reported any fault on our part.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
5. The investigating officer reported no fault on the other driver’s part.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
6. Lane markings showed no possible use of the left lane for going straight on.
Straw man.

You used the incident as an example of speeding and aggressive driving
and their bad consequences...

...only you can't show that either of those happened, and the latter was
specifically ruled out by the officer.
Thomas E.
2023-05-15 11:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
that they were passed on the right by
another driver, prior to getting to the
traffic circle. That makes for there being
at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of
a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed
to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
time to make any lane decisions. She did what
she thought was safest, not knowing that a
driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
roundabout's left lane and stay there when
going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from
the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have
the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Also note the road signage indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
only lane where the street exits the Springmill
roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
the side street heading east and the very limited
distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through
traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
Shit?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for
exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
lane road with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both
speeding and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your
wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
than us or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
The left lane is available for straight on and that's
what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
on your streets come September and will be interested in
observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
any very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
yards before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
could have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
pass her on the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.
You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
intending to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
You specifically denied it was the law...
...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
not something one needs to do.
The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
would have been no accident in this case.
Post by Thomas E.
Even more so
since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
at hand.
You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.
YOU are lying, Little Shit.
You said it was a law that only applied on highways, and that the road
you were on was not a highway.
Post by Thomas E.
1. The other driver was entitled to the right lane for a left turn.
I never said she was entitled to a left turn from the right lane.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
2. Traffic conditions at the time were such that a shift to the right lane was absolutely required on our part.
The lane was, by force of it only coming into being right there,
necessarily empty and there was (as you, yourself, have admitted) a car
behind you that wanted to go faster than you were going.
Post by Thomas E.
3. We were not entitled in any way to use the left lane to go straight on.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
4. The investigating officer reported any fault on our part.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
5. The investigating officer reported no fault on the other driver’s part.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
6. Lane markings showed no possible use of the left lane for going straight on.
Straw man.
You used the incident as an example of speeding and aggressive driving
and their bad consequences...
...only you can't show that either of those happened, and the latter was
specifically ruled out by the officer.
Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.
-hh
2023-05-15 13:18:08 UTC
Permalink
[huge snip]
Egads, you’re still being so butthurt over this?
Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.
Well, you did admit long ago that your car were passed on the right prior to
getting to the circle (where said accident occurred). That demonstrates both
a “want” and an actual action to then satisfy said want.

-hh
Thomas E.
2023-05-15 15:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by -hh
[huge snip]
Egads, you’re still being so butthurt over this?
Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.
Well, you did admit long ago that your car were passed on the right prior to
getting to the circle (where said accident occurred). That demonstrates both
a “want” and an actual action to then satisfy said want.
-hh
Please supply that exact reference
-hh
2023-05-15 16:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
[huge snip]
Egads, you’re still being so butthurt over this?
Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.
Well, you did admit long ago that your car were passed on the right prior to
getting to the circle (where said accident occurred). That demonstrates both
a “want” and an actual action to then satisfy said want.
-hh
Please supply that exact reference
November 2017 … yes, you’ve been ranting about this for that long:

< https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/ZlrodE0aBAAJ>

-hh
Alan
2023-05-15 23:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by -hh
Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
that they were passed on the right by
another driver, prior to getting to the
traffic circle. That makes for there being
at least two (2) faster vehicles.
In local parlance, that would be because of
a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
reg.
-hh
Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
the right might have caused an accident. And,
before that drivers in front of us had slowed
to make right turns at the first roundabout.
This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
time to make any lane decisions. She did what
she thought was safest, not knowing that a
driver was in the wrong lane for a left
turn.
Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
roundabout's left lane and stay there when
going straight on. What she did is normal
behavior. I have made several videos showing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Alan
Couple of points, Little Shit.
1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your
right.
2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.
3. She should have been in the right lane from
the moment the road gained a second lane before
the first of the two roundabouts.
'End of discussion for my part. You can have
the last reply.'
No, no and no. ...
Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
is no excuse.
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
not move to the right the moment the street widened.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
where she could have moved right.
Also note the road signage indicating that either
lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
Springmill.
A new "detail"!
From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
only lane where the street exits the Springmill
roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
the side street heading east and the very limited
distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
indicating that either lane is for straight through
traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
from moving right...
...when the road had been single lane?
Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
Shit?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
see my medical records too?
Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two
roundabouts."
She should have.
After the (very short) right turn only lane for
exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
lane road with a dotted line between them.
After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
her.
And your claim was that the other driver was both
speeding and being aggressive...
...and you've proven neither.
All we know is that she was going faster than your
wife.
I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
than us or being aggressive, but she was.
Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
aggression...
...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
definition you lied.
I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
Post by Thomas E.
As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
The left lane is available for straight on and that's
what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
Post by Thomas E.
The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
on your streets come September and will be interested in
observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
exactly what we see here in Carmel
"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
Post by Thomas E.
Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
customs, here or in Canada.
But I knew the law...
...and you didn't.
Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"
Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
any very busy 4 lane city street.
Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
remain empty?
You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
Post by Thomas E.
Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
yards before you GET to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
harass.
I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
could have taken...
Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
...that would have removed the conflict.
And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
Ignoring your lie.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
pass her on the right)...
...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.
Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
You weren't.
You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
intending to exit in the right lane with us.
Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
Little Shit?
Post by Thomas E.
And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
You specifically denied it was the law...
...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
not something one needs to do.
The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
would have been no accident in this case.
Post by Thomas E.
Even more so
since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
at hand.
You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are
issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
YOU are lying, Little Shit.
You said it was a law that only applied on highways, and that the road
you were on was not a highway.
Post by Thomas E.
1. The other driver was entitled to the right lane for a left turn.
I never said she was entitled to a left turn from the right lane.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
2. Traffic conditions at the time were such that a shift to the
right lane was absolutely required on our part.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
The lane was, by force of it only coming into being right there,
necessarily empty and there was (as you, yourself, have admitted) a car
behind you that wanted to go faster than you were going.
Post by Thomas E.
3. We were not entitled in any way to use the left lane to go straight on.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
4. The investigating officer reported any fault on our part.
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
5. The investigating officer reported no fault on the other
driver’s part.
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Straw man.
Post by Thomas E.
6. Lane markings showed no possible use of the left lane for going straight on.
Straw man.
You used the incident as an example of speeding and aggressive driving
and their bad consequences...
...only you can't show that either of those happened, and the latter was
specifically ruled out by the officer.
Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I
want the exact quote and source.
That's what brought this whole thing up, Little Shit.

I'm going to annotate.

1. "let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do"

The police report specifically states that your accident was not the
result of aggressive driving. It doesn't leave it an unanswered
question. It is answered definitively "NO". Do you agree that is true?


2. "The driver of vehicle 1 saw what appeared to her to be a nice gap in
right lane traffic that she could use to overtake vehicle 1,"

A gap she wouldn't have need to go for if your wife had moved over to
the right lane. Do you agree that is true?

And since the other driver could slide up alongside your car, it is
clear that moving over to the right lane would have been possible. Do
you agree that is true?



3. "Going at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions"

Is that your claim or is it from the accident report? Since I have a
copy of the report, it would be best if you told the truth for once.


4. "I know she was speeding because I was on the passenger side and saw
her coming up on us out of my mirror. It happened so fast that I had no
chance to warn my wife. "

Since you were looking at her coming up in the passenger side mirror,
you couldn't have seen what speed your wife was driving and therefore
don't know whether the other car was speeding or not.

Oh, and if you could see her in the car's passenger mirror:

1. The mirror was improperly aimed for the driver.

2. There couldn't have been this magical other car that you only brought
up much later in the discussion.


5. "Needless to say, vehicle 1 was at fault."

Yes, and I have never claimed otherwise. Do you agree that is true.

What I have stated, and what remains true is that IF your wife had moved
into the right lane when the right lane became available (more than
yards before the roundabout), then the other car would have stayed in
the left lane, and there would have been no conflict to make an accident
possible at the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?

You have consistently lied by making the claim that I was suggesting the
lane change take place IN the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?

Also note that you make no mention of a third vehicle blocking your view
at this time. Do you agree that is true?

And despite your claims about being unable to remember this mystery car
until much later, the accident took place just two weeks before you made
your first post about it. Do you agree that is true?


<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/efSANLwtBAAJ>
Alan
2023-06-02 16:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Thomas E.
Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I
want the exact quote and source.
That's what brought this whole thing up, Little Shit.
I'm going to annotate.
1. "let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do"
The police report specifically states that your accident was not the
result of aggressive driving. It doesn't leave it an unanswered
question. It is answered definitively "NO". Do you agree that is true?
2. "The driver of vehicle 1 saw what appeared to her to be a nice gap in
right lane traffic that she could use to overtake vehicle 1,"
A gap she wouldn't have need to go for if your wife had moved over to
the right lane. Do you agree that is true?
And since the other driver could slide up alongside your car, it is
clear that moving over to the right lane would have been possible. Do
you agree that is true?
3. "Going at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions"
Is that your claim or is it from the accident report? Since I have a
copy of the report, it would be best if you told the truth for once.
4. "I know she was speeding because I was on the passenger side and saw
her coming up on us out of my mirror. It happened so fast that I had no
chance to warn my wife. "
Since you were looking at her coming up in the passenger side mirror,
you couldn't have seen what speed your wife was driving and therefore
don't know whether the other car was speeding or not.
1. The mirror was improperly aimed for the driver.
2. There couldn't have been this magical other car that you only brought
up much later in the discussion.
5. "Needless to say, vehicle 1 was at fault."
Yes, and I have never claimed otherwise. Do you agree that is true.
What I have stated, and what remains true is that IF your wife had moved
into the right lane when the right lane became available (more than
yards before the roundabout), then the other car would have stayed in
the left lane, and there would have been no conflict to make an accident
possible at the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
You have consistently lied by making the claim that I was suggesting the
lane change take place IN the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
Also note that you make no mention of a third vehicle blocking your view
at this time. Do you agree that is true?
And despite your claims about being unable to remember this mystery car
until much later, the accident took place just two weeks before you made
your first post about it. Do you agree that is true?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/efSANLwtBAAJ>
And colour me shocked...

...because the lying Little Shit never replied to this post.
John
2023-06-03 03:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
 > Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass.
I want the exact quote and source.
That's what brought this whole thing up, Little Shit.
I'm going to annotate.
1. "let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do"
The police report specifically states that your accident was not the
result of aggressive driving. It doesn't leave it an unanswered
question. It is answered definitively "NO". Do you agree that is true?
2. "The driver of vehicle 1 saw what appeared to her to be a nice gap
in right lane traffic that she could use to overtake vehicle 1,"
A gap she wouldn't have need to go for if your wife had moved over to
the right lane. Do you agree that is true?
And since the other driver could slide up alongside your car, it is
clear that moving over to the right lane would have been possible. Do
you agree that is true?
3. "Going at an excessive rate of speed for the conditions"
Is that your claim or is it from the accident report? Since I have a
copy of the report, it would be best if you told the truth for once.
4. "I know she was speeding because I was on the passenger side and
saw her coming up on us out of my mirror. It happened so fast that I
had no chance to warn my wife. "
Since you were looking at her coming up in the passenger side mirror,
you couldn't have seen what speed your wife was driving and therefore
don't know whether the other car was speeding or not.
1. The mirror was improperly aimed for the driver.
2. There couldn't have been this magical other car that you only
brought up much later in the discussion.
5. "Needless to say, vehicle 1 was at fault."
Yes, and I have never claimed otherwise. Do you agree that is true.
What I have stated, and what remains true is that IF your wife had
moved into the right lane when the right lane became available (more
than yards before the roundabout), then the other car would have
stayed in the left lane, and there would have been no conflict to make
an accident possible at the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
You have consistently lied by making the claim that I was suggesting
the lane change take place IN the roundabout. Do you agree that is true?
Also note that you make no mention of a third vehicle blocking your
view at this time. Do you agree that is true?
And despite your claims about being unable to remember this mystery
car until much later, the accident took place just two weeks before
you made your first post about it. Do you agree that is true?
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/8tjNBlwhe4Q/m/efSANLwtBAAJ>
And colour me shocked...
...because the lying Little Shit never replied to this post.
Maybe he is busy practicing his outstanding flying skills- almost as
good as mine.

Alan
2023-03-14 18:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
couple of tellings.
Thomas E.
2023-03-29 18:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
couple of tellings.
By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL
Alan
2023-03-29 18:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
couple of tellings.
By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL
Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.

Come to Vancouver...

...and we'll discuss it.
Thomas E.
2023-04-05 12:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
couple of tellings.
By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL
Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
Come to Vancouver...
...and we'll discuss it.
So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to live in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting that your housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so has mine. You are right though, housing is expensive there, even compared to some small towns elsewhere in BC.

Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their income and the arrival of a first child they could simply not afford the rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar to your tiny condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of Vancouver childcare. Then again, a niece just moved back to the Midwest from LA for exactly the same reason.

How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left of it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any details on the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially violent, puppy.

Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.
Alan
2023-04-05 15:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
turning left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
we turned right in our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
into our right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at
least a couple of tellings.
By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest
email. LOL
Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
Come to Vancouver...
...and we'll discuss it.
So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily
discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to live
in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting that your
housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so has mine. You
are right though, housing is expensive there, even compared to some
small towns elsewhere in BC.
Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just
moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their income
and the arrival of a first child they could simply not afford the
rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar to your tiny
condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of Vancouver childcare.
Then again, a niece just moved back to the Midwest from LA for
exactly the same reason.
How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to
western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left of
it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any details on
the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially violent,
puppy.
Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.
Interesting you infer violence from a simple offer to discuss something.

It says a lot more about you than it does about me, little shit.
Thomas E.
2023-04-05 18:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
turning left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
we turned right in our lane to go straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
into our right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at
least a couple of tellings.
By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL
Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
Come to Vancouver...
...and we'll discuss it.
So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily
discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to live
in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting that your
housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so has mine. You
are right though, housing is expensive there, even compared to some
small towns elsewhere in BC.
Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just
moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their income
and the arrival of a first child they could simply not afford the
rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar to your tiny
condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of Vancouver childcare.
Then again, a niece just moved back to the Midwest from LA for
exactly the same reason.
How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to
western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left of
it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any details on
the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially violent,
puppy.
Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.
Interesting you infer violence from a simple offer to discuss something.
It says a lot more about you than it does about me, little shit.
Interesting that:

You took someting to a social media platform when a private email would have worked. Apparently denigration trumps privacy. Noted.

You want to confront me in person, not via email. Hmmmmm.

Here is a link to the accident report, driver info redacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z9uIMx4He5cRWXodQfj4Q0BEhyh1zMQc/view?usp=share_link

Please find any accident cause for us, driver #2, on page 1 of the report. BTW, the "no" answer for aggressive driving applies to both drivers.
Alan
2023-04-05 18:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Post by Thomas E.
Post by Alan
Remember? No?
I'll not argue because none of that matters.
And yet here you are... ...arguing.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver entered the circle with the
intention of turning left from the right lane.
Something I never denied, Little Shit.
Post by Thomas E.
My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to
think that the other driver was not going to exit
with us when we turned right in our lane to go
straight.
Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
Post by Thomas E.
The other driver should have turned with us, not
rammed into our right front fender.
Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were
not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable
or even possible.
Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where
on at least a couple of tellings.
By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL
Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
Come to Vancouver...
...and we'll discuss it.
So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily
discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to
live in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting
that your housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so
has mine. You are right though, housing is expensive there, even
compared to some small towns elsewhere in BC.
Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just
moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their
income and the arrival of a first child they could simply not
afford the rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar
to your tiny condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of
Vancouver childcare. Then again, a niece just moved back to the
Midwest from LA for exactly the same reason.
How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to
western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left
of it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any
details on the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially
violent, puppy.
Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.
Interesting you infer violence from a simple offer to discuss
something.
It says a lot more about you than it does about me, little shit.
You took someting to a social media platform when a private email
would have worked. Apparently denigration trumps privacy. Noted.
Acknowledging an email impacts privacy... ...how exactly.
Post by Thomas E.
You want to confront me in person, not via email. Hmmmmm.
Here is a link to the accident report, driver info redacted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z9uIMx4He5cRWXodQfj4Q0BEhyh1zMQc/view?usp=share_link
Please find any accident cause for us, driver #2, on page 1 of the
report. BTW, the "no" answer for aggressive driving applies to both
drivers.
Please find where I ever said the conclusion was only for one of the two
drivers.

I can find lots of places where you have claimed there was no such
determination made at all.

Since you had the accident report all along, that makes every single
time a deliberate lie...

...you little shit.

And finally:

'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
-hh
2023-02-08 02:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas E.
…
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups.
Pretty rich coming from the OP, particularly on a revisit to an incident …how many years ago now?


-hh
Loading...